Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Iinois

Name of Assigned Judge Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge . than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 137 DATE 10/31/2003
CASE USA vs. RONALD MIKOS
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented]
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) im Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due
@ a Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to} [set for/re-set for] on set for at :
(7) im Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) oOo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4m) CO Local Rule 41.1 OCFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) ME (Otherdocket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: defendant’s motion for
disclosure of Rule 608 evidence of character and conduct is DENIED.
ap [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court

No notices required. number of notices:

Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone.

U | Docketing to mail notices,
Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
TBK deputy’s
initials

~ Date/time rectived in

central Clerk’s Office ‘mailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) No. 02 CR 137
, )
) Honorable Ronald Guzman Dd if Loree
RONALD MIKOS ) EB j
) hofQy Beery
4 00 14 }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Mikos seeks disclosure of any specific instances of misconduct the government will use
to impeach him under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) should he testify at trial. Rule 608(b) contains no
notice provision. In response the prosecution points out that "[n]jo rule or rationale guarantees the
defense advance knowledge of legitimate impeachment before it calls a witness. United States v.
Baskes, 649 F.2d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 1980).” (Government’s Consolidated Response Pg. 3) In
point of fact it is not evidence that the government intends to use that plaintiff seeks, as
Fed.R.Evid. 608(b) does not delineate evidence that the government may actually use in court or
introduced at trial, so much as types of conduct which may be inquired about on cross
examination of defense witnesses. In fact, the rule specifically states the prior instances of
conduct being used solely to attack a witness’ credibility may not be proven by extrinsic
evidence, but only inquired into during cross-examination if they relate to the witness’ character
for truthfulness. It is, therefore, not evidence that the defense seeks by this motion, but rather
insight into what the government knows about the defendant’s prior conduct and how it intends
to use this knowledge at trial. We agree with the government that this goes too far. Further, the
information-at least as to the prior conduct, if not the government’s intention to use it, is easily

available to the defense from the defendant himself. Finally, any particular instances which the

[Is


defense objects to can be brought to the court’s attention in a motion in limine.

For the reasons stated above defendant’s motion for disclosure of Rule 608 evidence of

character and conduct is DENIED.

SO ORDERED ENTER: / o/ 2/' 0g

HON. RONALD A. GU:
United States Judge

GMasterlist Project Folders\USA V. RONALD MIKOS\Moo re Rule 608(b)